Fw190 WN 160022 in Earl Miller thread

[Crumpp]

Caption says at Montecervino Airfield, near Salerno, Italy in 1943

Nothing more exact for the "claim" by the mustangs?

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by gripen
I don't know what was the actual reason, but the LW left large number of intact aircraft to the airfields in Sicily. I have seen pictures of several Bf 109Gs, Fw 190s, Bf 110s etc. Maybe they had no fuel to evacuate or maybe the front collapsed so fast.

gripen

I've often wondered about that.  It seems like every 12th AF fighter group had at least one German fighter for each of their squadrons.  I've seen photos of the ones the 33rd FG had.  They had 109s for each Squadron and at least one 190.  The 57th Had 109s.  The 79th had the 190s and 109s and he 350th had 109s to name a few.  And certainly the RAF guys found more then their share of 109s.

Dan/Slack

[Crumpp]

I don't believe they were left due to lack of fuel.  In 1943 the Luftwaffe as not feeling the big aviation fuel crunch they would experience later, AFAIK.

More likely they were left due to lack of pilots and resources to fly them out.

Any retreat, just like any military action, takes planning.  The logistical resources simply were not put at the units defending Sicily disposal to conduct a coordinated withdrawal.

The Reich issued one of it's famous "Fuehrer Orders" and forbid any planned retreat off the Island of Sicily.  So units defended until the end even thought the military situation dictated they should have retreated long ago.  At least that was the party line.  

Now JG53, as did most of the units including Heer, did attempt an organized withdrawal to the Italian mainland.  I have several accounts of Ju 52 transports flying back to Sicily loaded with pilots to ferry aircraft back to Italy.  These operations were local in nature and conducted with theater only assets when available.

Just like Tunisia, the axis leadership created a stupid waste of men and materials by attempting to hold an untenable position rather than fall back to better defensive positions.  Kesselring was able to stop the Allies in Italy for the duration of the war with very little resources.  It's a matter of speculation what might have happenend had the men and materials destroyed in Tunisia and Sicily been at his disposal.  

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't believe they were left due to lack of fuel.  In 1943 the Luftwaffe as not feeling the big aviation fuel crunch they would experience later, AFAIK.

More likely they were left due to lack of pilots and resources to fly them out.

Why not fuel or was there a pipeline from the mainland to Sicily? Tha Axis could not deliever enough fuel to NA, so why not to Sicily?

Besides fuel, I would bet it was maintaince issues, like lack of spare parts or the time to fix the a/c.

Oh ya Crumpp, most of the Allied resources where slated for and went to the battles in NW Europe.

[Crumpp]

Why not fuel or was there a pipeline from the mainland to Sicily? Tha Axis could not deliever enough fuel to NA, so why not to Sicily?

For the strateagic level:
Show me were there is a fuel crunch of critical proportions?  I don't see it.  



Civilian consumption (INCLUDING EXPORTS) slightly goes above production in 1943 but considering the stocks available does nothing to create a critical shortage.

Only in the last few months of the war, when consumption greatly exceeds production is a critical shortage experienced.

For the tactical level:

None of the Luftwaffe units I am familiar with mention a fuel shortage that effects their operations.  If you have evidence I would be interested in it.  

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

It is not production Crumpp but the supply of fuel where required.

Ask Rommel about his fuel stocks.

[Crumpp]

We are not talking tank fuel are we?

Notice the graph says Aviation Fuel.  

Just so you do know.  Tanks and airplanes require different fuels.

Your comparison to Rommel's shortages is in no way valid.  The ability of a fuel truck to find a unit in the field is a totally different logistical problem from an aircraft getting fuel to it's airfield.

Rommel was correct in his assessment of good strategic military leadership when he said:

"Amateurs study tactics.  Professionals study logistics."



Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
We are not talking tank fuel are we?

Notice the graph says Aviation Fuel.  

Just so you do know.  Tanks and airplanes require different fuels.

Crumpp

LOL no kidding.  Now by different  fuels do you mean gasoline/petrol and diesel or the PN? German vehicles used petrol, even their tanks.

As the battles in NA progressed, less and less tankers reached NA ports. They would not only be carrying vehicle fuel but also avgas. Tankers are not one huge container(tank) but are made up of many, many smaller containers(tanks).

Yes we can all tell that you are truly an rookie amateur.

[Crumpp]

So far Milo,

Your just throwing out your usual round of insults with no validity.  Please provide some evidence that Luftwaffe units experienced a critical shortage of fuel in this timeframe that effected operations.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

And you have been shovelling your usual snotty BS, Crumpp. Your sly insinuations not withstanding.

Now, do you mean the the LW in general or the LW in NA and Sicily?


BTW Crumpp contact the webmaster of this site http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/index.html

Since you are so insistent, he is interested in those Fw190A-5/U13s that served in NA. Notice that he is the co-author of the 190 in Africa book.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Rommel was correct in his assessment of good strategic military leadership when he said:

"Amateurs study tactics.  Professionals study logistics."

Not sure one can accurately attribute that quote to Rommel - I think probably it goes at least as far back as Clausewitz, probably earlier.

Lord knows, Rommel certainly didn't pay any attention to it.

- oldman

[Crumpp]

Lord knows, Rommel certainly didn't pay any attention to it.

LOL, Oldman.

I am sure similar sentiments have been expressed before Rommel without a doubt.  It was however one of Rommels quotes and comes from his North Africa experience AFAIK.

Going completely down a side road from the Luftwaffe focus but it is easy to confuse a commanders wants, his directives from above, and the operational realities on the ground.  It is not that Rommel did not make mistakes or that he ignored logistics and I would say it is unfair to say he ignored them.  By the same standard Patton ignored logistics as did most WWII commanders.


His fuel supply problems where more a matter of getting the fuel from the depot's to the units.  Not in getting fuel from the Reich to the Depots.


Getting fuel to tanks which are changing position in the field constantly is a totally different and much more difficult logistical problem.

It is a problem that is still plagues today's military operations even with modern technology.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

As for the FW-190A5/U13:

Here is a USAAF translation of Luftwaffe documentation.  I have both the German and US Report.







IF the Werknummer Guppy Posted is correct the FW-190 in question is an FW-190A5/U13.

At least according to the Werknummer block listed here:

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm

Crumpp

[Wotan]

Nonsense Crumpp

Hi Kutscha,

The FW 190 variants that served in North Africa were the FW 190 A-2, A-3, A-4, A-4 Trop, A-5, A-5/U3 Trop, and A-5/U8. To my knowledge the A-5/U13 was not used in North Africa.

In fact, I've seen no documentary evidence of operational use of the FW 190 A-5/U13, but would like to hear from anyone who has.

The book by Morten Jessen and I, The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in North Africa, includes a brief discussion of the pros and cons of the A-5/U3 and A-5/U8, in Chapter 10. We'll look at this issue more in the sequel, which we are working on at the moment.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm34.showMessage?topicID=79.topic

[Crumpp]

Really?

Not unless the werknummer Guppy listed is wrong or the list on Andrews site is wrong.

Look, It is not my intention to called his work into question.  He wrote a fantastic book on FW-190 operations in North Africa IMO and I look forward to his other work.

I will point out that what I posted is referred too as a primary source.  The source being used on his for the FW-190 werknummers G-3 blocks is:

[3] M. Griehl & J. Dressel, Focke-Wulf Fw 190/Ta 152 - Jäger, Jagdbomber, Panzerjäger, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 1995

Is a called secondary source.  If you bother, Wotan, to do some legwork you will find out that even since 1995 a wealth of information on this stuff has become available to researchers.  Griehl and Dressel put out the most factual information available at the time.  I have no doubt of that NOR am I claiming it is incorrect.

I will say that I just spent the last few days in an archive that has literally thousands of just FW documents that have yet to be cataloged.  While I conducted research the man who ran it classified 15 new documents today alone.  That does not include the tens of thousands of both German and Japanese technical documents that wait cataloging.

So if we assume that NO FW-190A5/U13's served in Sicily then the werknummer listing is wrong.

If we assume the werknummer listing is correct, then without a doubt at least one FW-190A5/U13 was present.

When in doubt refers to primary sources.

Simply provide a link to this thread.  He can view the documents.  I would love to correspond with him about any FW-190 subject.  I am sure it would be beneficial to both.

Crumpp